Here we go yet again

[Sam Slater]

I'm calm. I know I'm right.

We have both been accused of being left-wing, pedantic, boring, long-winded twats one here. We share a lot in common, apparently.

But when I'm wrong, I like to think I'm the first to admit it. This is the difference between us. Being wrong is frustrating, but it also means you've learnt something, which is positive. You seem to see obstinacy and and unwillingness to concede anything of importance as some sort of strength. It's being insecure.

Have a look at the effort I put in to this post in a discussion with Max Tranmere:

I was in error on some of the major points, realized it and told him so before he could even reply:

My whole argument crashed and burned.........against Max Tranmere who's a complete tool. But he was right and I was wrong and was happy to admit it.*

Being wrong is ok now and again. No one is perfect, David. Be it pride or embarrassment, I don't know, but be a gentleman and admit you were wrong. No one will think less of you.





* Ok, I wasn't really happy.

[David Johnson]

The interpretation of the UN Charter made by the head of the organisation, the UN Secretary General and his legal advisers is good enough for me.

Sorry, no amount of insults and repeating yourself ad infinitum will change my opinion.

[David Johnson]

Err, have I read this elsewhere in the thread?

[Sam Slater]

[quote]The interpretation of the UN Charter made by the head of the organisation, the UN Secretary General and his legal advisers is good enough for me.[/quote]

And not a single one has brought forward a case. Therefore it's all hot air and political posturing against the west. You want to condemn whole nations on hearsay and conjecture then by all means it's your prerogative, I just hope you're never called up to jury service.

Your views on the war have clouded your judgement and hampered your ability to be objective and sensible. Your pride is stopping you admit when you're so obviously wrong. You're the one that's too emotional.

Be a man and do the right thing.

[David Johnson]

"And not a single one has brought forward a case. Therefore it's all hot air and political posturing against the west. You want to condemn whole nations on hearsay and conjecture then by all means it's your prerogative, I just hope you're never called up to jury service."

Now you are getting hysterical.

"Therefore it's all hot air and political posturing against the west."

Err, are you arguing that Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General was guilty of political posturing against the west?

And just to remind you, France and Germany opposed the Iraq war and did not get militarily involved. Were they guilty of political posturing against the west!!!!

"You want to condemn whole nations on hearsay and conjecture"

No based on the UN interpretation of its own charter and that of leading international lawyers. I don't think Annan's view was based on hearsay somehow..

"Your views on the war have clouded your judgement and hampered your ability to be objective and sensible. Your pride is stopping you admit when you're so obviously wrong. You're the one that's too emotional."

Yes, I disagree with you.

Do calm down!

[David Johnson]

Given I can almost feel the steam coming out of your ears as you repeat yourself ad infinitum. "Man up, agree with me" "Admit you are wrong, I do sometimes" , "I'm wasting my time, you don't agree with me" etc. etc. I want to get you thinking.

To summarise then about 15 of your posts:

You believe the Iraq war was not illegal because no country brought a case to the UN and no legal judgement was given based on the evidence supplied for and against as a result of that country's case being brought.

Now this is where you have to think.

Even if you are correct and you are not, that the war was not illegal, given you are so obsessed, let's refocus you on your proving that the war was legal, shall we?

Let's face it, Annan stating that the Iraqi war was illegal under the UN Charter didn't result in Iraq being laid waste, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and a death toll in July 2013 which was the worst for 5 years did it?

No, the decision by Blair and Bush that the war was legal had the consequences I reference in the above paragraph.

Over to you Sam, explain why the war was legal?

Did the US and the UK follow the UN procedure? No, not according to UN lawyers and Kofi Annan?

Was there a recognised breach of the Convention on Genocide, agreed in line with at least one of the legal triggers, before the war started? No.

So how was the war legal, Samuel? By which international court decision or international charter decision?

So if you cannot prove the war was legal, Sam, what was it?

Over to you. No insults please!

[David Johnson]

Yep, getting rid of a repressive dictator is a bit like taking the cork out of a champagne bottle. You don't know where it is going to end up.

And that has certainly been the US and UK experience in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc and absolutely no reason why that shouldn't be the case with Syria.

1. Allies lob umpteen cruise missiles into Damascus.
2. This prompts the collapse of the Syrian government.
3. Chemical shells fall into the hands of radical Islamists within the rebels.
4. Chemical shells get lobbed into Israel from Syria.
5. Israel invades Syria in retaliation.
6. Iran retaliates in support of Syria.
7. Hezbollah lob Iranian provided shells into Israel from Lebanon.

Unintended consequences!!!!!

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Now you are getting hysterical.[/quote]

Who told you that, Kofi Annan? Must be true then.

[quote]"Therefore it's all hot air and political posturing against the west."

Err, are you arguing that Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General was guilty of political posturing against the west?[/quote]

Well, you're arguing that apathetic Annan and his lawyer mates don't want to proceed further in bringing the allied nations to an international court for an illegal war because they think it's a waste of time. Over 100,000 killed over 10 years and they're put off so easily! And you use these gutless wankers to back up your claim that it's ok to judge people guilty without trial. More fool you.

[quote]And just to remind you, France and Germany opposed the Iraq war and did not get militarily involved.[/quote]

Then let them lobby the UN and force a proper investigation. They've had 10 years. Oh.......wait a minute......they won't because they think it's a waste of time......or the football's on.......or the stars aren't aligned right yet. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And have a little gander at France's involvement Rwanda. Not that I'm accusing France of directly arming the Hutus to help them commit genocide on the Tutsis - not without a fair trial first. I'm like that.


[quote]"You want to condemn whole nations on hearsay and conjecture"

No based on the UN interpretation of its own charter and that of leading international lawyers. I don't think Annan's view was based on hearsay somehow..[/quote]

Annan once said their was no genocide in Rwanda and it was 11 years before he admitted he might have got it wrong....and only then after a Hague court ruled the Kurdish massacres in the 80s was genocide. Like I've said numerous times: if he thinks there's a case to answer, he should have done everything he could to get justice for the Iraqis who died. He hasn't. What's that say about him? You think he's trustworthy, brilliantly perceptive and an all-round cool dude. I think he's an incompetent, apathetic, spineless cunt.

[quote]Do calm down![/quote]

An often repeated bit of advice for Jimslip during your little slanging matches, I believe?

No one's been charged or put on trial, let alone any guilty verdict on the legality of the Iraq war. Therefore, it's wrong to call it 'illegal' like it's a fact. You was wrong. Admit it.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Even if you are correct and you are not, that the war was not illegal, given you are so obsessed, let's refocus you on your proving that the war was legal, shall we?[/quote]

No. Let's focus on your glaring error in your first post, stating the war was illegal when no one has been charged, tried in a court or been found guilty of anything.

Let's focus on that. My main and first point. The bit where you are utterly wrong and stupidly trying to wriggle your way out of, go down side avenues to avoid and jump numerous hoops just to save face.

You were wrong. The Iraq war was legal until it's been proven in a court that it wasn't. Admit it..........then we can move on and argue the other points.

[Sam Slater]

There has been a ruling by a recognised court at the Hague that the Baathist regime, lead by Saddam Hussain, committed genocide on the Kurdish population of Iraq during the 80s.

There has been no ruling by a recognised court at the Hague (or anywhere) that the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal.


Therefore, I'm right and you are wrong.